Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Samina Parveen vs Defence Production on 15 May, 2025
1 O.A.No.200/734/2022
Reserved
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR
Original Application No.200/734/2022
Jabalpur, this Thursday, the 15th day of May, 2025
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE SMT. MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Samina Parveen
D/O Late Mohd. Habib,
aged about 49 years,
Unemployed, R/O 43/9,
G.K.Hussain Compound,
Behind Indian Coffee House,
Sadar, Cantt Jabalpur (Μ.Ρ.)- 482001
Mobile No. 93022 48797 -Applicant
(By Advocate -Shri J.B. Singh)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Through Secretary,
Ministry of Defence,
Department of Defence Production,
New Delhi-110 001
2. Chairman and Managing Director,
Advanced Weapons and Equipment India,
Ordnance Factory Kanpur,
Kalpi Road, Kanpur (UP)-208009
3. Director General Ordnance,
Directorate of Ordnance (Coordination & Services),
10-A S. K. Bose Road,
Kolkata-700001
4. General Manager,
Gun Carriage Factory,
Jabalpur-482075 - Respondents
(By Advocate -Shri A.P. Khare)
(Date of reserving the order:- 07.04.2025)
Page 1 of 12
ANUPAM2025.05.16
14:50:42
MISHRA +05'30'
2 O.A.No.200/734/2022
ORDER
By Justice Akhil Kumar Srivastava, JM;
By way of this Original Application, applicant has sought for quashing impugned order dated 15.07.2022 (Annexure A/8) whereby family pension has been denied to the applicant. She further prayed for direction to respondents to pay family pension to her since 22.01.2017 with interest @ 12% per annum for the delayed payment.
2. The facts of the case are that the applicant is a divorced and dependent duahgter of Late shri Mohammad Habib who has been retired on 30.06.1998 on attaining the age of superannuation from the post of Welder HS II. Father of the applicant was paid pension sicne 01.07.1998. Father of the applicant expired on 08.03.2007 (Annexure A/4).Thereafter applicant's mother was authorized to receive family pension, who expired on 21.01.2017 (Annexure A/5). After the death of mother the applicant being divorced daughter, applied for family pension but her claim was rejected vide letter dated 15.07.2022 (Annexure A/8). Applicant made a representation on 10.06.2022 to respondent No.4 but to no avail. Hence this Original Application.
Page 2 of 12
ANUPAM2025.05.16 14:50:42 MISHRA +05'30' 3 O.A.No.200/734/2022 2.1 Learned counsel for the applicant contended that as per instructions contained in GI Dept. of Personnel & Pensioners Welfare, Notification No.38/80/2008-P.&P.W.(A) (Part II) dated 8th June 2011, published in the Gazette of India dated 8th June 2011, unmarried or widowed or divorced daughters are entitled for family pension under Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Accordingly, the Applicant is entitled for family pension after the death of her mother i.e. from 22.01.2017 being divorced daughter fully dependent on and residing with her father and rejection of claim by the Respondent is unjustified, illegal and arbitrary. 2.2 Further it is submitted by the applicant that the Respondent no.4 as per letter dated 15.07.2022 (Annexure A-8) has rejected the claim of the Applicant on the ground that the Ikraranama' dated 16.07.2011 submitted by the applicant is only a contract and not a decree, the order dated 23.03.2022 of the court is not a decree of divorce and therefore, family pension is not admissible to the Applicant. The basis taken by the Respondents for rejection of the claim of family pension is unjustified, illegal and arbitrary in as much as the Hon'ble Family Court Jabalpur vide order dated 23.03.2022 in has very specifically held that for any Page 3 of 12 ANUPAM2025.05.16 14:50:42 MISHRA +05'30' 4 O.A.No.200/734/2022 divorce through KHULA under Muslim Law, no judicial decree is required. Thus, the divorce held between the Applicant and her ex-husband on 16.07.2011 through KHULA under Muslim Law, is valid under the law and no separate decree for divorce is needed under the law.
3. Respondents in their reply have submitted that applicant has not submitted the decree of divorce issued by the competent court during lifetime or divorce proceedings has been filed in the competent court during lifetime of at least one of the parents (employee or pensioner). Further ikrarnama dated 16.07.2011 submitted by the applicant cannot be accepted as a valid document as a legal divorce for grant of family pension to the applicant, same is not a decree of divorce but it is an agreement before the two parties. In family court order dated 23.03.2022, court has rejected the application and it is not a decree of divorce issued by the competent authority.
4. Applicant has filed rejoinder to the reply of the respondents stating that the applicant has already submitted Khulanama/Talaknama dated 16.07.2011 (Annexure A-10) which establishes that the applicant was divorced with her husband Mohammad Nasim through Page 4 of 12 ANUPAM2025.05.16 14:50:42 MISHRA +05'30' 5 O.A.No.200/734/2022 Khula during the life time of her mother. As the applicant belongs to Muslim Community wherein divorce through Khula is permissible under the Muslim Law and for that there is no need of any decree as held by Hon'ble Family Court in F. No. RCS A/97/2021 (Annexure A-11). Further the information submitted by the applicant in Form-14 i.e. application for grant of Family Pension, has not been rebutted by the Respondents. The Respondents need only the decree of divorce ignoring the Khulanama submitted by the applicant.
5. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the pleadings and documents annexed therewith.
6. It is not in dispute that divorced daughter is entitled to family pension. Office memorandum (OM) dated 11.09.2013 issued by the Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare (DPPW) states as follows:
"Provision for grant of family pension to a widowed/divorced daughter beyond the age of 25 years has been made vide OM dated 30.08.2004. This provision has been included in clause (iii) of subrule 54 (6) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972..."
(emphasis supplied)
7. A perusal of rule 54 (6) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 reveals the following position: Page 5 of 12
ANUPAM2025.05.16 14:50:42 MISHRA +05'30' 6 O.A.No.200/734/2022 "(6) The period for which family pension is payable shall be as follows:-
(i) subject to first proviso, in the case of a widow or widower, up to the date of death or re-marriage, whichever is earlier;
(ii) subject to second proviso, in the case of an unmarried son, until he attains the age of twenty-five years or until he gets married or until he starts earning his livelihood, whichever is the earliest;
(iii) subject to second and third provisos, in the case of an unmarried or widowed or divorced daughter, until she gets married or remarried or until she starts earning her livelihood, whichever is earlier;
(iv) subject to sub-rule (10-A), in the case of parents, who were wholly dependent on the Government servant immediately before the death of the Government servant, for life;
(v) Subject to sub-rule 10(B) and the fourth proviso, in the case of disabled siblings (i.e. brother and sister) who were dependent on the Government Servant immediately before the death of Government servant , for life:
Provided that family pension shall continue to be payable to a childless widow on re-marriage, if her income from all other sources is less than the amount of minimum family pension under sub-rule (2) of this rule and the dearness relief admissible thereon:
Provided also that the grant or continuance of family pension to an unmarried or widowed or divorced daughter beyond the age of twenty-five years or until she gets married or re-married or until she starts earning her livelihood, whichever is the earliest, shall be subject to the following conditions, namely:-Page 6 of 12
ANUPAM2025.05.16 14:50:42 MISHRA +05'30' 7 O.A.No.200/734/2022
(i) the family pension shall be initially payable to the minor children (mentioned in clause (ii) or clause (iii) of this sub-rule) in the order set out in clause (iii) of sub-
rule (8) of this rule until the last minor child attains the age of twenty-five years; and
(ii) there is no disabled child eligible to receive family pension in accordance with the second proviso of this sub-rule:
Provided also that such disabled siblings shall be eligible for family pension for life in the same manner and following the same disability criteria, as laid down in this rule in the case of son or daughter of the Government employees or pensioners suffering from any disorder or disability of mind (including mentally retarded) or physically crippled or disabled, so as to render him or her unable to earn a living even after attaining the age of twenty-five years.
EXPLANATION 1 .- An unmarried son or an unmarried or widowed or divorced daughter, except a disabled son or daughter shall become ineligible for family pension under this sub-rule from the date he or she gets married or remarried.
EXPLANATION 2 .- The family pension payable to such a son or a daughter or parents or siblings shall be stopped if he or she or they start earning his or her or their livelihood.
EXPLANATION 3 .- It shall be the duty of son or daughter or siblings or the guardian to furnish a certificate to the Treasury or Bank, as the case may be, once in a year that, (i) he or she has not started earning his or her livelihood, and (ii) he or she has not yet married or remarried and a similar certificate shall be furnished by a childless widow after her re- marriage or by the disabled son or daughter or by parents to the Treasury or Bank, as the case may be, once in a year that she or he or they have not started earning her or his or their livelihood.Page 7 of 12
ANUPAM2025.05.16 14:50:42 MISHRA +05'30' 8 O.A.No.200/734/2022 EXPLANATION 4 .- For the purpose of this sub- rule, a member of the family shall be deemed to be earning his or her livelihood if his or her income from other sources is equal to or more than the minimum family pension under sub-rule (2) of this rule and the dearness relief admissible thereon. ....."
(emphasis supplied).
Thus the divorced daughter is eligible for family pension subject to conditions enumerated in rule 54 (6) above. It is noted that the term used is 'divorced daughter' without any stipulation or prescription or qualification in regard to the mode of declaration of divorce.
8. The question which remains for consideration is whether the Khula/Ikrarnama/Talaknama submitted by the applicant is adequate for the respondents to consider her case for grant of family pension, or whether a legal divorce certificate issued by competent court is necessary for the purpose. On this issue, the co-ordinate Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal vide judgment dated 07.10.2020 passed in OA No. 308 of 2018 has dealt with a similar issue in the case of Ms Najmaben Umarbhai Kureshi vs Union of India & Ors. Relevant parts of interest in this case of the judgment are reproduced below:
"12. From the above, it can be seen that divorce of the applicant by way of "Customary Talaqnama" had taken place in the year 1992...It is noticed that there was no Page 8 of 12 ANUPAM2025.05.16 14:50:42 MISHRA +05'30' 9 O.A.No.200/734/2022 need to obtain Divorce Decree from competent court till the father of the applicant was alive, naturally the applicant had not obtained decree of Dissolution of Marriage from the competent court. At the same time, the factual matrix as stated herein above suggest that customary divorce of the applicant took place during the lifetime of her father and she continued to reside with him as divorcee daughter.
13. The Hon'ble High Court in the case of Union of India vs Mayuriben Jani Daughter of Shri Durgeshbhai Nandlal Jani (supra), it is noticed that while dealing with issue of denial of family pension to the divorced daughter of ex-railway employee for not fulfilling the conditions stipulated in OM dated 11.09.2013 and 19.07.2017 (i.e. R/1 collectively produced in this OA) the High Court held as under:
"Para 15. The provision of Rule 75 of the Family Pension Rules, in fact, is a benevolent piece of subordinate legislation and therefore it needs to be governed by the principles which are required to be pressed into service for extending the benefit of the family pension to those family members need support. Bearing this proposition of law in mind, if one examines Rule 75 which is also in pari materia with Rule 54 of the said Rules, would indicate that the family pension is available to the divorced daughter. The Rule does not recognize any further or other requirement to be eligible for receiving the family pension. The device in the form of guidelines developed by the authorities and incorporated in Office Memorandum are, therefore, to be viewed as only facilitating tools to assess, gauge and examine the cases of divorced daughter to receive family pension on the basis of the eligibility. When the factum of customary divorce is well recognized by the provision of Hindu Marriage Act with special emphasis upon Section 29(2), then perhaps rightly the author of Rule 54 and/or Rule 75 have not thought it fit to qualify the word "divorced daughter" by making it conditional that the divorce has to be declared by the competent court, else it Page 9 of 12 ANUPAM2025.05.16 14:50:42 MISHRA +05'30' 10 O.A.No.200/734/2022 would perhaps amount to improve upon the provision of Hindu Marriage Act, which unequivocally recognizes the customary divorce as a valid divorce provided the same is permissible under the community and the circumstances. The question, therefore, arises as to whether the respondents in the instant case, were having any justification to insist upon the divorce decree from the competent court and were they justified in declining to act upon the customary divorce factum which have remained unchallenged before the authority and which have been recorded by the Tribunal in its orders at length and elaborately. Section 29(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, reads as under: "Section 29(2): Nothing contained in this Act shall be deemed to affect any right recognized by custom or conferred by any special enactment to obtain the dissolution of a Hindu marriage, whether solemnized before or after the commencement of this Act."
Para 16. In other words, it can well be said that when the factum of customary divorce in both the cases have not been challenged by the authorities, their insistence for divorce decree only from the competent court indicating valid dissolution of marriage would not be justified. The Court hasten to add here that this proposition is on the valid premise that there exists no dispute qua customary divorce; in other words, the factum of applicants having a valid customary divorce deed when not under challenge and has accepted, then its mere authentication in the form of dissolution of marriage by the decree of competent court, in our view, would be improving the provision of the Hindu Marriage Act without any authority of law and the benefit, therefore, which are ensuring under Rule 54 and Rule 75 when it is not qualified in any other manner would have to be accorded to the divorced daughter also. Para 17. As Bombay High Court has observed rightly in its judgment, the important factor is the family in which the daughter is residing Page 10 of 12 ANUPAM2025.05.16 14:50:42 MISHRA +05'30' 11 O.A.No.200/734/2022 when the pensioner/recipient of the family pension dies. When the said factum has not been disputed in both the cases and when it is clearly recorded by the Tribunal as a fact that both the applicants were residing with the pensioner/recipient of the family pension, then the insistence for dissolution of marriage by the competent court only by way of decree, in our view, was not justified.
14. In the present case there is no challenge to the "Talaqnama" which had taken place between the applicant and her husband. Admittedly the customary divorce by way of "Talaqnama under Muslim Sariat" was well recognized mode of dissolution of marriage of Muslim couple at the relevant time and no need arose for the applicant to obtain a Divorce Decree from competent court. At the same time fact remains that the divorce of the applicant had taken place during the lifetime of her father..."
(emphasis supplied).
9. The divorce took place on 16.07.2011, when the applicant's mother was in receipt of family pension and there was no need for the applicant to obtain decree of divorce from competent court. It has also not been disputed that the applicant has been living in her parental home. There is no requirement under rule 54 (6) to obtain a decree of divorce or divorce certificate from competent court. As the customary Talaknama is available, there is no requirement for obtaining decree of divorce from competent court as held in Najmaben (supra). Therefore, insistence by Page 11 of 12 ANUPAM2025.05.16 14:50:42 MISHRA +05'30' 12 O.A.No.200/734/2022 the respondents on divorce certificate issued by competent court for the purpose of family pension is not justified.
10. In view of the facts and circumstances above, the OA is allowed and the order dated 15.07.2022 (Annexure A/8) is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to make payment of family pension to the applicant from the date due and pay interest as per GPF rate of interest for the payment delayed beyond the date due within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. No order as to costs.
(Mallika Arya) (Akhil Kumar Srivastava) Administrative Member Judicial Member kg/-
Page 12 of 12
ANUPAM2025.05.16 14:50:42 MISHRA +05'30'